Citation: Rugotruncana Brönnimann and Brown 1956Rank: GenusBasionym: Rugotruncana tileviType species: Rugotruncana tilevi Brönnimann and Brown, 1956Taxonomic discussion: The revised definition of this genus given by Pessagno (1967, *2387, p. 368) stated, in part "coarse rugosities or costellae, always arranged in a distinctive meridorial [sic] pattern, present on the surface of the test," but does not agree with the characters of the type species. Topotypes of R. tilevi (received from N. K. Brown) do not have the meridional alignment of costellae shown in the original drawing. Furthermore, as was correctly shown in the original illustrations, the chambers of R. tilevi are much more globular and the costae more widely spaced than in Globotruncana circumnodifer subsp. subcircumnodifer Gandolfi, hence the two species are not synonymous as had been stated by Pessagno, and R. tilevi remains the correct name for the type species of Rugotruncana.

Short diagnosis: Test with a low trochospiral coil, early chambers subglobular and inflated, later chambers slightly compressed, sutures curved on the spiral side and continuous with the peripheral carina, straight, radial, and depressed on the umbilical side, umbilicus wide, periphery with double-keeled imperforate carinal band; wall calcareous, finely perforate, surface strongly pustulose, adjacent pustules may coalesce into short costellae without distinct alignment, although resulting in a rugose surface; primary aperture interiomarginal, umbilical, elongate portici in the early chambers, later with distinctly protruding tegilla provided with accessory apertures.

Geological Range: Last occurrence (top): within Maastrichtian Stage (66.04-72.05Ma, top in Maastrichtian stage). Data source: Total of range of species in this databaseFirst occurrence (base): within Campanian Stage (72.05-83.64Ma, base in Campanian stage). Data source: Total of range of species in this database

Plot of occurrence data:

Dec 2017 - Plotting of Neptune data has been re-enabled on the Mesozoic pages following revision of the age-models in Neptune. The data is, however, still very sparse for the Early Cretaceous